PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Bill Wagner bwagner at digprod.com
Thu May 8 15:50:26 EDT 1997


     I offer an opinion as an outside observer. As Gail suggests, the HRMIB 
     hrPrinterDetectedErrorState is a bit map that allows the two 
     conditions, toner low and off-line to be flagged. Off-line is the 
     condition that prompts the  hrDeviceStatus = down. When the user puts 
     the device on-line, low toner remains, but device status is no longer 
     down.
     
     This reflects what is happening very well. I don't see why we want to 
     monkey with it. 
     
     My own feeling is that, in the case where a toner low prompts an off 
     line, the Alert table should have two alerts; one for low toner and 
     another for off-line. The idea of a condition that changes from 
     critical to warning is aesthetically displeasing. I guess you could 
     have two sequential events..toner low unacknowledged, which was 
     critical and toner low acknowledged which was a warning (and which 
     terminated the former). But I think we are making things more 
     complicated than necessary.
     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
Author:  "Gail Songer" <Gail.Songer at eng.efi.com> at Internet
Date:    5/8/97 11:25 AM




Jay,


On May 8,  1:49pm, JK Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> Gail,
>
> I certainly suggested that if the HR MIB model for printers ends up
> conflicting with what we believe is the *right* model for handling
> certain conditions, then yes, we should consider "deprecating" our
> association with the HR MIB status variables.
>
> However, if you agree that the values I proposed for the HR MIB variables
> (below) are correct, then for the "critical toner low" condition, there
> is no conflict.  Again, assuming the values I proposed are correct.


I am a bit confused here.  The definition that you have proposed:


> >
> >     hrDeviceStatus                down(5)
> >     hrPrinterStatus               other(1)
> >     hrPrinterDetectedErrorState   lowToner(1)
> >


is in conflict the host resources mib.  "lowToner" forces hrDeviceStatus to
"warning" not "down".  One way to avoid conflict is to add "offline" to
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState since "offline" requires "down" in hrDeviceStatus.
 This, unfortunatly, brings us back to the alert table.  I suppose that having
a toner low critical, that would change to a warning when the printer continues
would work and still keep everything consistent.


>
> Someone had previously illustrated a scenario in which the Alert Table
> entry would be in conflict with the previously published set of related
> HR MIB values.  What was that scenario?
>
>       ...jay
>



More information about the Pmp mailing list